Pavel Raskin v. Kilolo Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-04482
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAVEL RASKIN, ) Case No. CV 20-4482-JPR ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 13 v. ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE ) TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social ) 15 Security, ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff, through counsel Suzanne C. 18 Leidner, filed a Complaint challenging the denial of Social 19 Security disability benefits. The Court issued a case-management 20 order on May 29, 2020, setting various deadlines. On February 21 18, 2021, Defendant filed notice that Leidner had not 22 communicated a settlement proposal to him by the November 12, 23 2020 deadline and had not submitted Plaintiff’s portion of the 24 joint stipulation to him by January 14, 2021, as ordered. 25 Consequently, on February 26, 2021, after Plaintiff had 26 failed to respond to Defendant’s notice, the Court ordered 27 Leidner to show cause why the lawsuit should not be dismissed for 28 failure to prosecute and to follow Court orders. The OSC stated 1 1 that it would automatically be discharged if Plaintiff submitted 2 his portion of the Joint Stipulation to Defendant before March 3 12, 2021, and filed proof of having done so, or if during that 4 same period Plaintiff or the parties together asked for an 5 extension of the case-management deadlines. The Court warned, in 6 bold letters, that “Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to this 7 OSC will likely result in dismissal of this action.” To date 8 nothing has been filed in response to the OSC. Indeed, Plaintiff 9 has taken no action in this case in more than eight months. 10 Courts may dismiss lawsuits that are not diligently 11 prosecuted. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 12 (1962); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 13 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th 14 Cir. 1988) (per curiam). In determining whether to dismiss a 15 plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute, a court must 16 consider “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 17 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 18 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 19 favoring disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the 20 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 21 (citation omitted). Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable 22 presumption of prejudice to the defendant that can be overcome 23 only with an affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff. 24 See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 25 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 26 militate in favor of dismissal. The Court takes judicial notice 27 of numerous other cases in this district that Leidner has failed 28 2 1 || to prosecute;! her apparent inability to handle her caseload 2 i}makes it impossible for the Court to manage its docket, and her 3] failure to respond in any way to the OSC means she has not 4]| rebutted the presumption of prejudice to Defendant and that no 5} less drastic sanction is available. Although the fourth factor 6 || weighs against dismissal — as it does in every case — the other factors together outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of 8 || the case on its merits.’ See Long v. Astrue, 416 F. App’x 633, 91634 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding dismissal of Social Security 10} action for failure to prosecute when plaintiff had not served 11} summons and did not show cause for his failure to do so). 12 Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action without 13 |] showing good cause, so it must be DISMISSED. Leidner is ORDERED serve Plaintiff with this Order by certified mail and file 15 |] proof of such service by no later than April 1, 2021. If she 16 |] does not do so, the Court will sanction her personally $250. 17 DATED: 3/18/2021 u te JEAN ROSENBLUTH 18 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 ' Those cases include Vazquez v. Saul, No. 5:19-cv-1923 ADS, 71 2020 WL 7405794 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute after Leidner failed to respond to OSC); White 22 |] & Saul, No. CV 20-0800-JEM, 2020 WL 7186737 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020) (same); Jesus J.V. v. Saul, No. 2:19-CV-04698 DSF (KES), 2020 3 WL 8461756 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020) (same). There are many others. The Court’s review of its Case Management/Electronic Case Filing 4 system reveals that in the past year, Leidner has filed at least two dozen new complaints even as she has been unable to handle the 25 caseload she already has. The Court recommends that she seriously consider not taking on any more new clients until she has a better 6 handle on her present work obligations. 27 * Although the Court dismisses this action without prejudice, it takes no view on whether the Appeals Council will or should 2g | grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file any new appeal. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c).